SEC Petition Evaluation Report 

Petition SEC-00099 

Report Rev #_0 Report Submittal Date: December 14, 2007

Subject Expert(s): Michael J. Domal, Michael S. Kubiak 

Site Expert(s): N/A 

Petitioner Administrative Summary 

Petition Under Evaluation 

Petition # Petition 

Type 

Petition A 

Receipt Date DOE/AWE Facility Name 

SEC-00099 83.14 October 9, 2007 Combustion Engineering 

Proposed Class Definition 

All AWE employees who were monitored, or should have been monitored, for exposure to ionizing 

radiation while working at the Combustion Engineering site in Windsor, Connecticut, for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1972, or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC.

Related Petition Summary Information 

SEC Petition Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status 

None 

Related Evaluation Report Information 

Report Title DOE/AWE Facility Name 

None

ORAU Lead Technical Evaluator: Michael J. Domal ORAU Review Completed By: Michael S. Kubiak

Peer Review Completed By: [Signature on file] 12/14/2007 

 LaVon B. Rutherford Date 

SEC Petition Evaluation Reviewed By: [Signature on file] 12/17/2007 

 J. W. Neton Date 

SEC Evaluation Approved By: [Signature on file] 12/17/2007 

 Larry Elliott Date 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

2 of 20

This page intentionally left blank 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

3 of 20

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00099, Combustion Engineering 

This evaluation report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

addresses a class of employees proposed for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) per the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7384 et seq. (EEOICPA) and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees 

as Members of the Special Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000. 

NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition

The NIOSH-proposed class includes all Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employees who were 

monitored, or should have been monitored, for exposure to ionizing radiation while working at the 

Combustion Engineering site in Windsor, Connecticut, for a number of work days aggregating at least 

250 work days from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1972, or in combination with work days 

within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction

Per EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.14(b), NIOSH has established that it does not have sufficient 

information to complete dose reconstructions for individual members of the class with sufficient 

accuracy. NIOSH lacks sufficient dosimetry data, workplace monitoring data, and source term data, 

making reconstruction of total internal and external doses infeasible. 

Health Endangerment Determination

The NIOSH evaluation did not identify evidence supplied by the petitioners or from other sources that 

would establish the class was exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have involved 

exceptionally high-level exposures, such as nuclear criticality incidents or other events involving 

similarly high levels of exposures. However, the evidence reviewed in this evaluation indicates that 

some workers in the class may have accumulated chronic radiation exposures through intakes of 

uranium and direct exposure to radioactive materials. Therefore, 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3)(ii) requires 

NIOSH to specify that health may have been endangered for those workers covered by this evaluation 

who were employed for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the 

parameters established for this class or in combination with work days within the parameters 

established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

4 of 20

This page intentionally left blank 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

5 of 20

Table of Contents 

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00099, Combustion Engineering .................................................... 3 

1.0 Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................... 7 

2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7 

3.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition and Petition Basis................................................................ 8 

4.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Proposed Class ........................................................... 8 

4.1 Operations Description....................................................................................................... 9 

4.2 Radiation Exposure Potential from Operations.................................................................. 9 

4.3 Time Period Associated with Radiological Operations.................................................... 10 

4.4 Site Locations Associated with Radiological Operations ................................................ 11 

4.5 Job Descriptions Affected by Radiological Operations ................................................... 13 

5.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Proposed Class.............................................. 13 

5.1 Internal Personnel Monitoring Data ................................................................................. 14 

5.2 External Personnel Monitoring Data................................................................................ 14 

5.3 Workplace Monitoring Data............................................................................................. 14 

5.4 Radiological Source Term Data ....................................................................................... 14 

6.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Proposed Class ...................................................... 15 

6.1 Feasibility of Estimating Internal Exposures ................................................................... 15 

6.2 Feasibility of Estimating External Exposures .................................................................. 16 

7.0 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00099........................................................ 16 

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00099................................................... 17 

9.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class for Petition SEC-00099 ...................................................................... 18 

10.0 Evaluation of Second Similar Class .......................................................................................... 18 

11.0 References ................................................................................................................................. 19 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

6 of 20

Figure 

4-1: Combustion Engineering Site Map................................................................................................ 12 

Tables 

4-1: Uranium Shipments from Combustion Engineering to Fernald Feed Center................................ 10 

4-2: Known AEC- and Non-AEC-Related Work Locations and Operations........................................ 11 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

7 of 20

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00099

1.0 Purpose and Scope 

ATTRIBUTION AND ANNOTATION: This is a single-author document. All conclusions drawn from 

the data presented in this evaluation were made by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) 

Team Lead Technical Evaluator: Michael Domal, MJW Corporation, Inc. These conclusions were 

peer-reviewed by the individuals listed on the cover page. The rationales for all conclusions in this 

document are explained in the associated text. 

This report evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing doses for employees who worked at a specific 

facility during a specified time. It provides information and analysis germane to considering a petition 

for adding a class of employees to the Congressionally-created SEC. 

This report does not make any determinations concerning the feasibility of dose reconstruction that 

necessarily apply to any individual energy employee who might require a dose reconstruction from 

NIOSH, with the exception of the employee whose dose reconstruction could not be completed, and 

whose claim consequently led to this petition evaluation. The finding in this report is not the final 

determination as to whether or not the proposed class will be added to the SEC. This report will be 

considered by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) and by the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Secretary of HHS will make the final decision concerning 

whether to add one or more classes to the SEC in response to the petition addressed by this report. 

This evaluation, in which NIOSH provides its findings both on the feasibility of estimating radiation 

doses of members of this class with sufficient accuracy and on health endangerment, was conducted in 

accordance with the requirements of EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.14. 

2.0 Introduction 

Both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 require NIOSH to evaluate qualified petitions requesting the 

Department of Health and Human Services to add a class of employees to the SEC. The evaluation is 

intended to provide a fair, science-based determination of whether it is feasible to estimate, with 

sufficient accuracy, the radiation doses of the proposed class of employees through NIOSH dose 

reconstructions.1

NIOSH is required to document its evaluation in a report, and to do so, relies upon both its own dose 

reconstruction expertise as well as technical support from its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities. Once completed, NIOSH provides the report to both the petitioners and the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health. The Board will consider the NIOSH evaluation report, 

together with the petition, comments of the petitioner(s) and such other information as the Board 

 

1

 NIOSH dose reconstructions under EEOICPA are performed using the methods promulgated under 42 C.F.R. pt. 82 and 

the detailed implementation guidelines available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

8 of 20

considers appropriate, to make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on whether or not to add 

one or more classes of employees to the SEC. Once NIOSH has received and considered the advice 

of the Board, the Director of NIOSH will propose a decision on behalf of HHS. The Secretary of 

HHS will make the final decision, taking into account the NIOSH evaluation, the advice of the Board, 

and the proposed decision issued by NIOSH. As part of this final decision process, the petitioner(s) 

may seek a review of certain types of final decisions issued by the Secretary of HHS.2

3.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition and Petition Basis 

The NIOSH-proposed class includes all AWE employees who were monitored, or should have been 

monitored, for exposure to ionizing radiation while working at the Combustion Engineering site in 

Windsor, Connecticut, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days from January 1, 

1965 through December 31, 1972, or in combination with work days within the parameters 

established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. During this period, employees at 

this facility were involved with research activities, uranium processes, and shipments of uranium to 

the Fernald Site. 

The evaluation responds to Petition SEC-00099, which was submitted by an EEOICPA claimant 

whose dose reconstruction could not be completed by NIOSH due to a lack of sufficient dosimetryrelated information. This claimant was employed as a Test Project Engineer at the Combustion 

Engineering site from 1968 through 1972. NIOSH’s determination that it is unable to complete a dose 

reconstruction for an EEOICPA claimant is a qualified basis for submitting an SEC petition pursuant 

to 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(b). 

4.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Proposed Class 

The following subsections summarize the radiological operations at the Combustion Engineering site 

from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1972 and the information available to NIOSH to 

characterize particular processes and radioactive source materials. Using available sources, NIOSH 

has attempted to gather process and source descriptions, information regarding the identity and 

quantities of radionuclides of concern, and information describing processes through which the 

radiation exposures of concern may have occurred and the physical environment in which they may 

have occurred. The information included within this evaluation report is meant only to be a summary 

of the available information. 

 

2

 See 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 for a full description of the procedures summarized here. Additional internal procedures are 

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

9 of 20

4.1 Operations Description 

Combustion Engineering (CE) sent shipments of uranium to Fernald between 1965 and 1972 for use 

in nuclear weapons production. It is because of these shipments that the CE site qualifies as an 

Atomic Weapons Employer for these years. The Fernald site was a uranium processing facility 

designed to provide high-purity uranium metal products in support of the nuclear weapons production 

program (ORAUT-TKBS-0017-1). No documentation describing the Combustion Engineering 

on-site operations related to uranium shipments to Fernald has been located. 

In addition to the AWE work described above, Combustion Engineering has a history of nonweapons-related radiological activities. For example, during the 1950s and 1960s, the Combustion 

Engineering site was used for nuclear research, fabrication of nuclear fuel from highly-enriched 

uranium (HEU), and construction of naval reactor prototypes for the Atomic Energy Commission 

(AEC). Combustion Engineering performed HEU fuel fabrication (using 5% to 93% U-235) from 

1955 through 1967. Since the 1960s, the facility has been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) to fabricate low-enriched uranium assemblies for light-water moderated 

commercial power reactors, and to conduct research and development using light-water fuel. 

4.2 Radiation Exposure Potential from Operations 

The potential for internal and external radiation dose from uranium compounds existed at the 

Combustion Engineering site, based on weapons-related uranium shipments made between 1965 and 

1972. NIOSH does not know either what activities were performed with uranium compounds or the 

processing involved in uranium shipping operations. NIOSH has located documentation regarding the 

Combustion Engineering shipments to Fernald, including dates, quantities, weight, and enrichment 

classification (NMMSS); however, NIOSH has no indication as to the completeness of the 

documentation. The earliest shipment date listed is December 1967; NIOSH has been unable to verify 

whether additional shipments of AEC-related uranium were or were not made from Combustion 

Engineering. The documentation available to NIOSH does not describe the work processes or 

exposure conditions associated with the Combustion Engineering handling of the AEC shipments. 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

10 of 20

Table 4-1 lists uranium shipments known by NIOSH to have been sent from Combustion Engineering 

to the Fernald Feed Center (NMMSS). 

Table 4-1: Uranium Shipments from Combustion Engineering to Fernald Feed Center 

Date Material Element 

Weight 

Isotope 

Weight Units 

12-31-67 DU 1 0 Kilograms 

12-31-67 EU 60,075 1,033 Grams 

07-23-69 EU 608,486 10,150 Grams 

07-25-69 EU 127,142 2,536 Grams 

10-03-69 EU 404,798 11,042 Grams 

10-20-69 EU 397,418 10,676 Grams 

12-01-69 EU 346,903 5,766 Grams 

12-01-69 EU 36,729 769 Grams 

12-01-69 EU 125,318 3,187 Grams 

12-01-69 EU 88,462 2,831 Grams 

12-04-69 EU 17,405 290 Grams 

12-04-69 EU 34,799 1,111 Grams 

12-11-69 EU 48,412 1,015 Grams 

12-11-69 EU 219,683 5,572 Grams 

12-29-69 EU 236,396 3,974 Grams 

12-29-69 EU 93,321 2,372 Grams 

12-29-69 EU 457,261 14,616 Grams 

01-12-71 EU 40,479 820 Grams 

01-17-71 EU 40,003 807 Grams 

01-20-71 EU 35,892 723 Grams 

01-20-71 EU 1,225 25 Grams 

01-28-71 EU 28,029 570 Grams 

10-28-71 EU 76,710 1,284 Grams 

In addition to AWE work activities, many commercial operations were occurring simultaneously, 

including fuel fabrication and research. Indications are that, with the exception of one building, all of 

buildings used for AWE-related work were also used for commercial work (CE, 1991). During the 

covered period, radiological exposures from AWE related work and commercial activities must be 

included for dose reconstruction. 

4.3 Time Period Associated with Radiological Operations 

Per the DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security, the time period associated with the uranium 

shipments from Combustion Engineering to the Fernald site is between 1965 and 1972 

(http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/fwsp/advocacy/faclist/findfacility.cfm). This evaluation 

assumes the period of potential AWE radiological exposures to be the period from January 1, 1965 

through December 31, 1972. 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

11 of 20

4.4 Site Locations Associated with Radiological Operations 

Locations on the Combustion Engineering site that are known to have been used for AWE work 

included Buildings 1-6, the Prototype Reactor, the Waste Storage Area, the Drum Burial Site, and the 

Creekbed (FUSRAP, 1994). Commercial nuclear work was also conducted in all of these areas, with 

the exception of Building 3 where fuel fabrication involving highly-enriched uranium was performed 

for the AEC. A Combustion Engineering site map is shown in Figure 4-1 (CE, 1996, pdf page 61). 

Table 4-2 summarizes the information available to NIOSH regarding AEC-related work locations and 

their operations (CE, 1991; CE, 1996; FUSRAP, 1994). There was on-going work being performed in 

other buildings from 1965 to 1972; however, Combustion Engineering did not seek FUSRAP 

designation for these buildings (CE, 1991). Therefore, NIOSH concludes that these buildings hosted 

non-AEC activities. 

Table 4-2: Known AEC- and Non-AEC-Related Work Locations and Operations 

Building Number/Facility Activities 

1 AEC contract activities and commercial activities 

2 AEC contract activities and commercial activities 

3 Used exclusively for AEC fuel fabrication and enrichment 

4 AEC contract activities and commercial activities 

5 AEC fuel manufacturing, radioactive material storage, and commercial 

work 

6 Liquid waste dilutions and pumping from Buildings 3 and 5 

Waste Storage Area Stored barrels and equipment from both AEC and non-AEC sources 

Drum Burial Site 

(located next to Waste Storage area) Onsite burial 

Prototype Reactor Building Developed and used for AEC projects; transferred in 1971 to GE (Knolls 

Atomic Power Lab) 

Building 17 Commercial fuel fabrication (FUSRAP, 1994, pdf page 19) 

All other buildings Unknown commercial activities or administrative support 

Because NIOSH lacks any information regarding on-site operations, NIOSH has no insight into 

Combustion Engineering control of radioactive materials being transported between work areas. 

Without such information, given the proximity of AWE and non-AWE work on site, and NIOSH’s 

inability to rule out cross-contamination of work areas, NIOSH is unable to limit the SEC class based 

on work location within the Combustion Engineering site. Consequently, all Combustion Engineering 

areas are included in the proposed SEC class. 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

12 of 20

Figure 4-1: Combustion Engineering Site Map 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

13 of 20

4.5 Job Descriptions Affected by Radiological Operations 

No documentation on the job descriptions or operations associated with uranium shipments to Fernald 

has been located. Due to the lack of information regarding worker job descriptions, and lack of 

knowledge concerning worker movements within the Combustion Engineering site, NIOSH is unable 

to rely solely on worker job descriptions to determine the potential for AWE radiological exposure. 

5.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Proposed Class 

The primary data used for determining internal exposures are derived from personal monitoring data, 

such as urinalyses, fecal samples, and whole-body counting results. If these are unavailable, the air 

monitoring data from breathing zone and general area monitoring are used to estimate the potential 

internal exposure. If personal monitoring and breathing zone area monitoring are unavailable, internal 

exposures can sometimes be estimated using more general area monitoring, process information, and 

information characterizing and quantifying the source term. 

This same hierarchy is used for determining the external exposures to the cancer site. Personal 

monitoring data from film badges or thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are the primary data used 

to determine such external exposures. If there are no personal monitoring data, exposure rate surveys, 

process knowledge, and source term modeling can sometimes be used to reconstruct the potential 

exposure. 

A more detailed discussion of the information required for dose reconstruction can be found in 

OCAS-IG-001, External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, and OCAS-IG-002, Internal 

Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline. These documents are available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocasdose.html. 

NIOSH has searched the Site Research Database (SRDB), the claimant data stored in its NIOSH 

OCAS Claims Tracking System (NOCTS), and documents available on the Internet. NIOSH has also 

completed data capture efforts with the successor company, Asea Brown Boveri, and with both state 

and federal regulators. There are approximately 30 claimants in the NOCTS database who worked for 

Combustion Engineering during the 1965-72 timeframe. Of these claimants, only one had internal 

monitoring data for this time period, which consisted of two bioassay results. Four claimants had 

limited external dose records during this time period. The available bioassay results were for natural 

uranium and were less than the detection limits for urinalysis at the Fernald Site for this time period 

(ORAUT-TKBS-0017-5). The highest recorded external cumulative whole-body dose for a claimant 

for the period 1965-72 was approximately 5 rem. 

There were no workplace monitoring records, area monitoring, or air sampling data found for the time 

period 1965-72. No documentation on the work activities or processes associated with the uranium 

shipments to Fernald has been located. Although other sites supplied uranium to the Fernald site, 

there is no way to determine if their work activities were similar to Combustion Engineering given the 

limited Combustion Engineering data currently available. Based on available information, NIOSH 

can make no reasonable assumptions regarding the possible source term during Combustion 

Engineering’s AWE operational period. 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

14 of 20

5.1 Internal Personnel Monitoring Data 

Only one of the approximately 30 NIOSH claimants has records of internal monitoring during the 

1965 to 1972 time frame; these consist of two uranium urinalysis results. Three other claimants have 

bioassay records (lung counts or chest counts); however, none of their measurements are before 1982. 

Due to the lack of source term and material type information for pre-1973 Combustion Engineering 

AWE and commercial operations, and the lack of internal monitoring results for the majority of the 

claimants, it is not possible to use these four in vivo results to bound doses for all workers for the 

period 1965 through 1972. 

NIOSH also attempted to locate other internal monitoring records, including fecal monitoring, 

breathing zone results, and nasal swabs, but none was found. NIOSH also could not locate any 

records describing urinalysis practices. One report (HASL, 1964) cited workplace monitoring 

practices in 1964 that consisted of general air sampling and breathing zone air sampling for groups of 

workers; however, NIOSH has located no air sampling results. Ventilation effluents were also 

sampled by Combustion Engineering. Average and high values were given in the 1964 report, but no 

individual data or sampling analysis descriptions were provided (HASL, 1964). No similar reports 

could be found for the time period 1965-1972. 

5.2 External Personnel Monitoring Data 

External monitoring data were found for four claimants for the period 1965 through 1972. None of 

the other 25 claimants had dosimetry records of any kind. Of the four with external dose records, two 

of the claimants had only summary data on an annual basis or longer, and two had monthly results. It 

appears that film badges were used. Records included whole-body, skin, and some neutron doses. 

Area monitoring and radiological surveys were sought but not found. NIOSH was unable to locate 

any radiological incident or personnel contamination records. 

5.3 Workplace Monitoring Data 

No workplace monitoring records were found. Types of records that NIOSH sought include general 

air sampling, area air samples, area radiation monitoring, radiological surveys, and annual radiological 

reports. No such records were found for the time period 1965-1972. 

5.4 Radiological Source Term Data 

NIOSH has been unable to locate documentation on the work processes associated with the uranium 

shipments to Fernald, and has located only limited data on the materials involved in the shipments, as 

presented in Table 4-1. Some historical information pertaining to the non-weapons-related 

radiological work may be useful in describing both the types of activities that occurred during the time 

period under evaluation, and some of the known radionuclides. According to a 1999 FUSRAP 

Characterization Report, as many as 20 out of 100 Combustion Engineering contracts with the AEC 

from 1955 through 1965 specified the use of HEU and other special nuclear material (FUSRAP, 

1999). A 1965 special nuclear materials license was located indicating the presence of U-235 at 

various levels of enrichment (License, 1965). A 1960 Quarterly Progress Report describes the 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

15 of 20

development and testing of homogeneous ceramic fuels (Quarterly, 1960). A 1967 memo describes 

the shipment of scrap depleted uranium (Request, 1967). The 1999 Characterization Report focused 

on three uranium isotopes of concern (U-234, U-235, and U-238), and also indicated the presence of 

Co-60, which may have been associated with Combustion Engineering research and development 

(FUSRAP, 1999). 

Many projects took place at the Combustion Engineering site during the 1965-72 timeframe and for 

many years thereafter. However, given the limited data currently available, NIOSH can make no 

assumptions about quantities of particular isotopes or source materials that may have been used on site 

during the AWE operational period. 

6.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Proposed Class 

42 C.F.R. § 83.14(b) states that HHS will consider a NIOSH determination that there was insufficient 

information to complete a dose reconstruction, as indicated in this present case, to be sufficient,

without further consideration, to conclude that it is not feasible to estimate the levels of radiation 

doses of individual members of the class with sufficient accuracy. 

In the case of a petition submitted to NIOSH under 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(b), NIOSH has already 

determined that a dose reconstruction cannot be completed for an employee at the DOE or AWE 

facility. This determination by NIOSH provides the basis for the petition by the affected claimant. 

Per § 83.14(a), the NIOSH-proposed class defines those employees who, based on completed 

research, are similarly affected and for whom, as a class, dose reconstruction is similarly not feasible. 

In accordance with § 83.14(a), NIOSH may establish a second class of co-workers at the facility for 

whom NIOSH believes that dose reconstruction is similarly infeasible, but for whom additional 

research and analysis is required. If so identified, NIOSH would address this second class in a 

separate SEC evaluation rather than delay consideration of the claim currently under evaluation (see 

Section 10). This would allow NIOSH, the Board, and HHS to complete, without delay, their 

consideration of the class that includes a claimant for whom NIOSH has already determined a dose 

reconstruction cannot be completed, and whose only possible remedy under EEOICPA is the addition 

of a class of employees to the SEC. 

This section of the report summarizes research findings by which NIOSH determined that it lacked 

sufficient information to complete the relevant dose reconstruction and on which basis it has defined 

the class of employees for which dose reconstruction is not feasible. NIOSH’s determination relies on 

the same statutory and regulatory criteria that govern consideration of all SEC petitions. 

6.1 Feasibility of Estimating Internal Exposures 

As indicated in Section 5.0, NIOSH does not have access to sufficient personnel monitoring data, area 

monitoring data, or source term data to estimate internal exposures at Combustion Engineering for the 

period January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1972. The two available urinalysis results were for 

natural uranium. No information exists on the analytical methodology. There were no lung counts or 

fecal analyses results. Furthermore, neither the work activities nor the source terms are known. 

Therefore, is not possible to determine which radionuclides employees should have been monitored 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

16 of 20

for, or the magnitude of any potentially unmonitored internal doses. It is also not possible to 

reasonably bound potential internal doses. Based on the lack of relevant data, NIOSH is unable to 

estimate with sufficient accuracy the potential internal exposures at the Combustion Engineering site 

during the period from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1972. 

6.2 Feasibility of Estimating External Exposures 

As indicated in Section 5.0, NIOSH does not have access to sufficient personnel monitoring data, area 

monitoring data, or source term data to estimate external occupational exposures at Combustion 

Engineering for the period January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1972. Of the approximately 30 

claimants, four individuals had limited dosimetry records. Dose records results were given for 

shallow dose and deep dose. One neutron result was also given. No other external monitoring data 

could be found for any of the other employees. No information could be found regarding personnel 

monitoring practices, work activities, or possible source terms. No survey records or area monitoring 

data were available. It is not known which individuals should have been monitored, or the magnitude 

of their potentially-unmonitored external dose. Based on the lack of relevant data, NIOSH is unable 

to estimate with sufficient accuracy the potential total external exposures at the Combustion 

Engineering site during the period from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1972. 

NIOSH considers the adequate reconstruction of medical dose for Combustion Engineering likely to 

be feasible by using claimant-favorable assumptions as well as the applicable protocols in the 

complex-wide Technical Information Bulletin Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related 

Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT-OTIB-0006). 

7.0 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00099 

This report evaluates the feasibility for estimating the dose, with sufficient accuracy, for all AWE 

employees at the Combustion Engineering site from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1972. 

NIOSH has determined that it lacks sufficient dosimetry data, workplace monitoring data, and source 

term data to reconstruct the total internal and external exposures at the facility during this time period. 

Consequently, NIOSH finds that it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation 

doses resulting from exposures received by members of this class of employees. 

NIOSH has documented herein that it cannot complete the dose reconstruction related to this petition. 

The basis of this finding is specified in this report, which demonstrates that NIOSH does not have 

access to sufficient information to estimate either the maximum radiation dose incurred by any 

member of the class or to estimate such radiation doses more precisely than a maximum dose 

estimate. 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

17 of 20

Members of this class at the Combustion Engineering site may have received internal and external 

radiation exposures from covered AEC work and commercial activities at the plant. This work would 

involve any AWE covered or commercial activities associated with uranium that was on site and 

subsequently shipped to Fernald and research involving radioactive material. NIOSH lacks sufficient 

information, which includes dosimetry data, workplace monitoring data, and source term data that 

would allow it to estimate the potential internal and external exposures to the proposed class. 

Occupational medical exposures may be reasonably estimated by using claimant-favorable 

assumptions as well as the applicable protocols in the complex-wide Technical Information Bulletin 

Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT-OTIB0006). 

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00099 

The health endangerment determination for the class of employees covered by this evaluation report is 

governed by EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.14(c) and § 83.13(c)(3). Pursuant to these requirements, if 

it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses for members of the class, NIOSH 

must determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered 

the health of members of the class. The regulations require NIOSH to assume that any duration of 

unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of members of a class when it has been 

established that the class may have been exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear criticality incidents. If 

the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has not been established, then NIOSH is 

required to specify that health was endangered for those workers who were employed for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for the class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 

NIOSH has determined that members of the class were not exposed to radiation during a discrete 

incident likely to have involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear 

criticality incidents. However, the evidence reviewed in this evaluation indicates that some workers in 

the class may have accumulated chronic radiation exposures through intakes of radionuclides and 

from direct exposure to radioactive materials. Consequently, NIOSH is specifying that health was 

endangered for those workers covered by this evaluation who were employed for a number of work 

days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for this class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

18 of 20

9.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class for Petition SEC-00099 

The evaluation defines a single class of employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses 

with sufficient accuracy. This class includes all AWE employees who were monitored, or should 

have been monitored, for exposure to ionizing radiation while working at the Combustion Engineering 

site in Windsor, Connecticut, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days from 

January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1972, or in combination with work days within the parameters 

established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 

10.0 Evaluation of Second Similar Class 

In accordance with § 83.14(a), NIOSH may establish a second class of coworkers at the facility, 

similar to the class defined in Section 9.0, for whom NIOSH believes that dose reconstruction may not 

be feasible, but for whom additional research and analyses are required. Such a class would be 

addressed in a separate SEC evaluation, so as not to delay consideration of the current claim. At this 

time, NIOSH has not identified a second similar class of employees at the Combustion Engineering 

site for whom dose reconstruction may not be feasible. 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

19 of 20

11.0 References 

42 C.F.R. pt. 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal 

Register/Vol. 67, No. 85/Thursday, p 22296; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 19391 

42 C.F.R. pt. 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 

19392 

42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special 

Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 

2000; Final Rule; May 28, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 22001 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385 [EEOICPA], Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000; as amended; OCAS website 

OCAS-PR-004, Internal Procedures for the Evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort Petitions, Rev. 0, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Cincinnati, Ohio; September 23, 

2004 

ORAUT-0TIB-0006, Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray 

Procedures, Rev. 3, PC-1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT), Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, December 21, 2005 

ORAUT-TKBS-0017-1, Technical Basis Document for the Fernald Environmental Management 

Project - Introduction, Rev. 1, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT), Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, March 17, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 19478 

ORAUT-TKBS-0017-5, Technical Basis Document for the Fernald Environmental Management 

Project - Occupational Internal Dose, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team (ORAUT), 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 28, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 19485 

CE, 1991, Memo from Jack C. Moulton, (CE Program Manager) to James W. Wagoner II (Acting 

Chief, Off-Site Branch, Division of Eastern Programs, DOE Office of Environmental Restoration) 

requesting FUSRAP designation for AEC-related areas of the Combustion Engineering site in 

Windsor, Connecticut 

CE, 1996, Response to DOE Questions, memo and enclosures from John F. Conant (Combustion 

Engineering Senior Project Manager) to Mr. Albert S. Johnson (DOE FUSRAP Team); September 4, 

1996; SRDB Ref ID: 6475, pdf pages 45-50 

FUSRAP, 1994, Authority Determination – Combustion Engineering Site, Windsor, Connecticut; U.S. 

Department of Energy; Formerly Utilized Site Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP); June 20, 1994; 

SRDB Ref ID: 6248 pdf pp. 147-149; CE Site Map, pdf page 19 
SEC-00099 12-14-07 Combustion Engineering

20 of 20

FUSRAP, 1999, Characterization Report for Buildings 3 and 3A at the Combustion Engineering Site, 

Volume I; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District; Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 

Action Program; October, 1999; SRDB Ref ID: 6475, Page 102 

HASL, 1964, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Nuclear Division; Windsor, Connecticut: Health, Safety 

and Fire Protection Survey; H. Glauberman and A. A. Weintraub; Health Protection Engineering 

Division; Health and Safety Laboratory; U.S. Atomic Energy Commission; New York Operations 

Office; March 10, 1964; SRDB Ref ID: 14815 

License, 1965, Special Nuclear Material License for Combustion Engineering, Inc., Nuclear 

Division; U.S. Atomic Energy Commission; August 9, 1965; SRDB Ref ID: 6537 

NMMSS, Nuclear Material Management and Safeguards System (NMMSS) Extract of Combustion 

Engineering LEU Shipments to Fernald; U.S. Department of Energy; SRDB Ref ID: Not currently in 

SRDB 

Quarterly, 1960, Quarterly Report: The Development& Testing of Homogenous Ceramic Fuels; 

Contract AT(30-1)-2379; U.S. Atomic Energy Commission; December, 1960: SRDB Ref ID: 31925 

Request, 1967, Request for Authorization to Remove Depleted Uranium from Inventory; memo from J. 

H. Noyes (Manager, National Lead Company of Ohio) to C. L. Karl (Area Manager; USAEC, 

Cincinnati Area Office); 1967; SRDB Ref ID: 29932